Erickson v. Erickson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Erickson v. Erickson

668 So. 2d 1093, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2042, 1996 WL 91550

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 5, 1996

DocketNo. 94-2863

StatusPublished

This text of 668 So. 2d 1093 (Erickson v. Erickson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Erickson v. Erickson, 668 So. 2d 1093, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2042, 1996 WL 91550 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the final order of dissolution of Mary Susan Erickson and James Edward Erickson. The parties entered into a stipulated agreement just prior to the final hearing; the agreement was recited at the hearing; the recitation contained no provision regarding the federal income tax deduction for the parties’ only child. The final judgment however contains a paragraph [1094]*1094(six) relating to the federal income tax deduction. The inclusion in the final judgment of a provision that was not in the parties’ agreement is error. See Steiner v. Steiner, 638 So.2d 174, 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

We therefore reverse and remand for entry of a corrected final judgment, deleting paragraph six. We affirm in all other respects.

MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the final order of dissolution of Mary Susan Erickson and James Edward Erickson. The parties entered into a stipulated agreement just prior to the final hearing; the agreement was recited at the hearing; the recitation contained no provision regarding the federal income tax deduction for the parties’ only child. The final judgment however contains a paragraph [1094]*1094(six) relating to the federal income tax deduction. The inclusion in the final judgment of a provision that was not in the parties’ agreement is error. See Steiner v. Steiner, 638 So.2d 174, 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

We therefore reverse and remand for entry of a corrected final judgment, deleting paragraph six. We affirm in all other respects.

MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 So. 2d 1093, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2042, 1996 WL 91550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erickson-v-erickson-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack